Nicker on 17/9/2013 at 15:14
Did you eat at least $1,000.00 worth of chocolate made by these manufacturers, Cadbury, Hershey, Nestle and/or Mars, between Feb. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2008? Are you a resident of Canada. Then you might qualify for a kickback, that is to say, (
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/17/chocolate-settlement-price-fixing/) compensation for your victimisation by price fixing.
That's right, millions of us deserving Canadians will receive trivial amounts of cash disbursed by lawyers who will make even more money...
Meanwhile, in a land far, far away, children who have never tasted chocolate, continue to work in appalling conditions on plantations ripped from dwindling forests...
Oh fuck Canada.
Ostriig on 17/9/2013 at 15:46
I don't get it, why fuck Canada? Is it because who knows how many Canadians are going to get a trivial payoff as a result of the Canadian justice system enforcing penalties for anti-competitive behaviour? Or is it because a bunch of lawyers are going to make a lot of money off huge companies that engaged in anti-competitive behaviour?
Because if it's about the fact that there's poverty elsewhere in the world I don't quite see the connection with Canada in this instance.
faetal on 17/9/2013 at 19:07
Ok your honour - we can either choose to penalise the confectioners, or we can start fighting poverty in the third world, which is it going to be?
Renzatic on 17/9/2013 at 22:05
That'd make for a great closing defense for someone who's finding himself on the losing end of a case.
"Yeah, your honor, my client probably is guilty. But so what? What does it matter? Stealing a million bucks from a guy who could obviously afford to lose it is nothing compared to all the suffering going on in the world. I mean look at the plaintiff. Nice suit. Trophy wife. Owns a yacht. Now look at the defendant. Dressed in loud colors despite being on trial. Smug disposition even in this darkest of moments. Obviously he's a conman, and I doubt he even feels a single ounce of remorse. Now here's a picture of Pol Pot. Does my client compare? Yes. He's guilty. Of theft. Simple Theft. He didn't murder anyone. He's not an African warlord starving children by the scores. When you look at his crimes from a broader perspective, he's quite innocent. Almost childlike, I daresay. And that's why he should be found Not Guilty, your honor. I rest my case".
Angel Dust on 17/9/2013 at 23:38
:laff: That was brilliant.
Nicker on 18/9/2013 at 02:32
Geeze guys. Cut me some slack.
1 - I am Canadian so I can say anything I want about my country. And it wasn't fuck you Canada, it was WTF Canada.
2 - My point is not that the Candy Men should be let off but that the penalty would be better used, as a lump sum, to correct some of the greater ills that the chocolate industry has foisted on the world, rather than pissed away in nickle and dime compensation to chocolate addicts. It is going to cost more to process each claim than each claim will likely return to any given consumer.
3 - A thousand dollars worth of cheap chocolate during the period covered is getting close to one person scoffing two family sized bars every day.
4 - Renzatic's court room drama was a treat... but I am still hurrr durrr at the lot of you! :mad:
faetal on 18/9/2013 at 11:28
I agree with 2. Renzatic's skit was great also.
demagogue on 18/9/2013 at 23:05
What you're criticizing in point #2 actually has a function in tort & antitrust law. In economic terms, companies don't feel the pain of lawsuits and internalize the costs unless the liability is big enough to make a dent in their bottom line. So it usually happens that small claims over many people, even though they are huge costs to society, end up being externalities to the company, big ones, that go on years & years without change. So the principal value of class action lawsuits isn't the amount of compensation that the victims get, but the much bigger amount of compensation the company has to pay so it & other companies avoid the bad behavior in the future. Companies act on incentives & costs need to be internalized; it's the golden rule of things like torts & antitrust.
Nicker on 19/9/2013 at 00:58
I get the punitive concept of the action but there are some practical concerns from my perspective.
One is that the $23 million penalty, spread over the half dozen companies cited, is a trivial amount for each.
Another is that this expense will simply be passed along to consumers, sooner or later. So even this slap on the wrist won't be felt.
And it's not like people are going to stop eating chocolate as a result. People are likely to just take the cash and return it to the companies in return for more chocolate.
If the awards have no punitive effect then they might at least have a beneficial one. Twenty-three million could endow a foundation to do enduring work promoting fair trade or for diabetes research, children's sports etc. etc. etc. etc...
Or perhaps consumer advocacy?
Pyrian on 19/9/2013 at 01:53
Quote Posted by Nicker
Another is that this expense will simply be passed along to consumers, sooner or later.
The price of any good is as much as they can charge for that good before the decrease in sales offsets the increase in profits. Notice what
isn't in that rule? Costs of doing business. In this era of soaring corporate profits, expenses are not generally passed on to the consumer; they're already charging as much as they can get away with.
